Re: V6 still not supported

[John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>]

> > Let me say that again.  Among all the reasons why IPv6 didn't take
> > over the world, NONE of them is "because we spent all our time
> > improving IPv4 standards instead".
>
> I'll somewhat call bullshit on this conclusion from the data
> available. True, none of the reasons directly claim "IPv6 isn't good
> enough because we did X for v4 instead", yet all of them in some way
> refer back to "insufficient resources to make this the top priority."
> which means that any resources being dedicated to improving (or more
> accurately further band-aiding) IPv4 are effectively being taken away
> from solving the problems that exist with IPv6 pretty much by
> definition.

Hi, Owen.  Your reasoning proves too much.

You propose that every minute of every day that every human isn't
actively working at top priority to make IPv6 the default protocol on
the Internet, are misguided efforts.  "Pretty much by definition."

"Any resources being dedicated to" eating, sleeping, going to the
bathroom, listening to music, painting a canvas, repairing cars,
steering ships, growing food, running railroads, going to school, going
to work, riding bicycles, ending homelessness, stopping wars, reforming
drug laws, band-aiding IPv4, reducing corruption in government, posting to
mailing lists (as you pointed out -- by posting a message to a mailing
list!), hopping, skipping, and jumping, "are effectively being taken
away from solving the problems that exist with IPv6."

Given the billions of people who eat and sleep for HOURS every day, I
think I am doing pretty well by just coordinating three people part-time
trying to improve IPv4 a little bit.  The eaters' and sleepers' level of
non-IPv6 effort is billions of times stronger than my level of non-IPv6
effort.  Can you forgive me?

        John